Spending by federal agencies is governed by the extensive Federal Acquisition Regulations or FAR for short. In response to a Biden executive order the FAR Council is conducting a silly public inquiry as to how climate change should be factored into federal spending. The Federal Government spends over $6 trillion a year so this is a very big deal.
The concept is ridiculous and some of the ideas are illegal but this foolish agency action deserves serious attention. The FAR Council has issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) titled “Federal Acquisition Regulation: Minimizing the Risk of Climate Change in Federal Acquisitions“. Comments are due by December 15. I urge people to comment.
Continued at Source:Biden’s climate power grab via trillions of dollars in annual federal procurement — Climate- Science.press
“The Great Work” = Enabled by Climate Emergency
Risk of Eco-Accidents:
NATURE: Abrupt and widespread discontinuities exist in the fossil record of fauna and are considered evidence of widespread mass extinction of species. These low frequency events have been attributed to fluctuations in sea level, reversals of the geomagnetic fields (exposing the earth’s surface to lethal radiation), impacts of the earth by very large meteors (putting tons of dust into the atmosphere cutting off photosynthesis) and supernovae (causing catastrophic but temporary climate changes). There are also a range of potential man-made ecocatastrophes, such as triggering an earthquake with a an underground nuclear explosion. In addition, there are other more fantastic possibilities. The sun will expand into a red star engulfing Mercury and Venus and melting lead on the Earth. The moon can fall to earth, a comet, a swarm of meteorites or a black hole could collide with the earth. The earth will eventually loose its atmosphere. A life form might evolve destroying all of humankind.
This is the source material for the United Nations Agenda 2030 – the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The carrying out of the implementation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals is the partnership formed between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum known as “The Great Reset”…
See where this Masonic aptitude takes us…
The UK government’s Behavioural Insights Team helped to push the public towards accepting the COVID narrative, restrictions and lockdowns. It is now working on ‘nudging’ people towards further possible restrictions or at least big changes in their behaviour in the name of ‘climate emergency’. From frequent news stories and advertisements to soap opera storylines and government announcements, the message about impending climate catastrophe is almost relentless.
Part of the messaging includes blaming the public’s consumption habits for a perceived ‘climate emergency’. At the same time, young people are being told that we only have a decade or so (depending on who is saying it) to ‘save the planet’.
Setting the agenda are powerful corporations that helped degrade much of the environment in the first place. But ordinary people, not the multi-billionaires pushing this agenda, will pay the price for this as living more frugally seems to be part of the programme (‘own nothing and be happy’). Could we at some future point see ‘climate emergency’ lockdowns, not to ‘save the NHS’ but to ‘save the planet’?
A tendency to focus on individual behaviour and not ‘the system’ exists.
But let us not forget this is a system that deliberately sought to eradicate a culture of self-reliance that prevailed among the working class in the 19th century (self-education, recycling products, a culture of thrift, etc) via advertising and a formal school education that ensured conformity and set in motion a lifetime of wage labour and dependency on the products manufactured by an environmentally destructive capitalism.
A system that has its roots in inflicting massive violence across the globe to exert control over land and resources elsewhere.
In his 2018 book ‘The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequalities and its solutions’, Jason Hickel describes the processes involved in Europe’s wealth accumulation over a 150-year period of colonialism that resulted in tens of millions of deaths.
By using other countries’ land, Britain effectively doubled the size of arable land in its control. This made it more practical to then reassign the rural population at home (by stripping people of their means of production) to industrial labour. This too was underpinned by massive violence (burning villages, destroying houses, razing crops).
Hickel argues that none of this was inevitable but was rooted in the fear of being left behind by other countries because of Europe’s relative lack of land resources to produce commodities.
This is worth bearing in mind as we currently witness a fundamental shift in our relationship to the state resulting from authoritarian COVID-related policies and the rapidly emerging corporate-led green agenda. We should never underestimate the ruthlessness involved in the quest for preserving wealth and power and the propensity for wrecking lives and nature to achieve this.
Commodification of nature
Current green agenda ‘solutions’ are based on a notion of ‘stakeholder’ capitalism or private-public partnerships whereby vested interests are accorded greater weight, with governments and public money merely facilitating the priorities of private capital.
A key component of this strategy involves the ‘financialisation of nature’ and the production of new ‘green’ markets to deal with capitalism’s crisis of over accumulation and weak consumer demand caused by decades of neoliberal policies and the declining purchasing power of working people. The banking sector is especially set to make a killing via ‘green profiling’ and ‘green bonds’.
According to Friends of the Earth (FoE), corporations and states will use the financialisation of nature discourse to weaken laws and regulations designed to protect the environment with the aim of facilitating the goals of extractive industries, while allowing mega-infrastructure projects in protected areas and other contested places.
Global corporations will be able to ‘offset’ (greenwash) their activities by, for example, protecting or planting a forest elsewhere (on indigenous people’s land) or perhaps even investing in (imposing) industrial agriculture which grows herbicide-resistant GMO commodity crop monocultures that are misleadingly portrayed as ‘climate friendly’.
FoE states:“Offsetting schemes allow companies to exceed legally defined limits of destruction at a particular location, or destroy protected habitat, on the promise of compensation elsewhere; and allow banks to finance such destruction on the same premise.”
This agenda could result in the weakening of current environmental protection legislation or its eradication in some regions under the pretext of compensating for the effects elsewhere. How ecoservice ‘assets’ (for example, a forest that performs a service to the ecosystem by acting as a carbon sink) are to be evaluated in a monetary sense is very likely to be done on terms that are highly favourable to the corporations involved, meaning that environmental protection will play second fiddle to corporate and finance sector return-on-investment interests.
As FoE argues, business wants this system to be implemented on its terms, which means the bottom line will be more important than stringent rules that prohibit environmental destruction.
The envisaged commodification of nature will ensure massive profit-seeking opportunities through the opening up of new markets and the creation of fresh investment instruments.
Capitalism needs to keep expanding into or creating new markets to ensure the accumulation of capital to offset the tendency for the general rate of profit to fall (according to writer Ted Reese, it has trended downwards from an estimated 43% in the 1870s to 17% in the 2000s). The system suffers from a rising overaccumulation (surplus) of capital.Reese notes that, although wages and corporate taxes have been slashed, the exploitability of labour continued to become increasingly insufficient to meet the demands of capital accumulation. By late 2019, the world economy was suffocating under a mountain of debt. Many companies could not generate enough profit and falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflows and highly leveraged balance sheets were prevalent. In effect, economic growth was already grinding to a halt prior to the massive stock market crash in February 2020.
In the form of COVID ‘relief’, there has been a multi-trillion bailout for capitalism as well as the driving of smaller enterprises to bankruptcy. Or they have being swallowed up by global interests. Either way, the likes of Amazon and other predatory global corporations have been the winners.
New ‘green’ Ponzi trading schemes to offset carbon emissions and commodify ‘ecoservices’ along with electric vehicles and an ‘energy transition’ represent a further restructuring of the capitalist economy, resulting in a shift away from a consumer oriented demand-led system.
It essentially leaves those responsible for environmental degradation at the wheel, imposing their will and their narrative on the rest of us.
Between 2000 and 2009, Indonesia supplied more than half of the global palm oil market at an annual expense of some 340,000 hectares of Indonesian countryside. Consider too that Brazil and Indonesia have spent over 100 times more in subsidies to industries that cause deforestation than they received in international conservation aid from the UN to prevent it.
These two countries gave over $40bn in subsidies to the palm oil, timber, soy, beef and biofuels sectors between 2009 and 2012, some 126 times more than the $346m they received to preserve their rain forests.
India is the world’s leading importer of palm oil, accounting for around 15% of the global supply. It imports over two-thirds of its palm oil from Indonesia.
Until the mid-1990s, India was virtually self-sufficient in edible oils. Under pressure from the World Trade Organization (WTO), import tariffs were reduced, leading to an influx of cheap (subsidised) edible oil imports that domestic farmers could not compete with. This was a deliberate policy that effectively devastated the home-grown edible oils sector and served the interests of palm oil growers and US grain and agriculture commodity company Cargill, which helped write international trade rules to secure access to the Indian market on its terms.
Indonesia leads the world in global palm oil production, but palm oil plantations have too often replaced tropical forests, leading to the killing of endangered species and the uprooting of local communities as well as contributing to the release of potential environment-damaging gases. Indonesia emits more of these gases than any country besides China and the US, largely due to the production of palm oil.
The issue of palm oil is one example from the many that could be provided to highlight how the drive to facilitate corporate need and profit trumps any notion of environmental protection or addressing any ‘climate emergency’. Whether it is in Indonesia, Latin America or elsewhere, transnational agribusiness – and the system of globalised industrial commodity crop agriculture it promotes – fuels much of the destruction we see today.
Even if the mass production of lab-created food, under the guise of ‘saving the planet’ and ‘sustainability’, becomes logistically possible (which despite all the hype is not at this stage), it may still need biomass and huge amounts of energy. Whose land will be used to grow these biomass commodities and which food crops will they replace? And will it involve that now-famous Gates’ euphemism ‘land mobility’ (farmers losing their land)?
Microsoft is already mapping Indian farmers’ lands and capturing agriculture datasets such as crop yields, weather data, farmers’ personal details, profile of land held (cadastral maps, farm size, land titles, local climatic and geographical conditions), production details (crops grown, production history, input history, quality of output, machinery in possession) and financial details (input costs, average return, credit history).
Is this an example of stakeholder-partnership capitalism, whereby a government facilitates the gathering of such information by a private player which can then use the data for developing a land market (courtesy of land law changes that the government enacts) for institutional investors at the expense of smallholder farmers who find themselves ‘land mobile’? This is a major concern among farmers and civil society in India.
Back in 2017, agribusiness giant Monsanto was judged to have engaged in practices that impinged on the basic human right to a healthy environment, the right to food and the right to health. Judges at the ‘Monsanto Tribunal’, held in The Hague, concluded that if ecocide were to be formally recognised as a crime in international criminal law, Monsanto could be found guilty.
The tribunal called for the need to assert the primacy of international human and environmental rights law. However, it was also careful to note that an existing set of legal rules serves to protect investors’ rights in the framework of the WTO and in bilateral investment treaties and in clauses in free trade agreements. These investor trade rights provisions undermine the capacity of nations to maintain policies, laws and practices protecting human rights and the environment and represent a disturbing shift in power.
The tribunal denounced the severe disparity between the rights of multinational corporations and their obligations.
While the Monsanto Tribunal judged that company to be guilty of human rights violations, including crimes against the environment, in a sense we also witnessed global capitalism on trial.
Global conglomerates can only operate as they do because of a framework designed to allow them to capture or co-opt governments and regulatory bodies and to use the WTO and bilateral trade deals to lever influence. As Jason Hickel notes in his book (previously referred to), old-style colonialism may have gone but governments in the Global North and its corporations have found new ways to assert dominance via leveraging aid, market access and ‘philanthropic’ interventions to force lower income countries to do what they want.
The World Bank’s ‘Enabling the Business of Agriculture’ and its ongoing commitment to an unjust model of globalisation is an example of this and a recipe for further plunder and the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few.
Brazil and Indonesia have subsidised private corporations to effectively destroy the environment through their practices. Canada and the UK are working with the GMO biotech sector to facilitate its needs. And India is facilitating the destruction of its agrarian base according to World Bank directives for the benefit of the likes of Corteva and Cargill.
The TRIPS Agreement, written by Monsanto, and the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, written by Cargill, was key to a new era of corporate imperialism. It came as little surprise that in 2013 India’s then Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar accused US companies of derailing the nation’s oil seeds production programme.
Powerful corporations continue to regard themselves as the owners of people, the planet and the environment and as having the right – enshrined in laws and agreements they wrote – to exploit and devastate for commercial gain.
Partnership or co-option?
It was noticeable during a debate on food and agriculture at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow that there was much talk about transforming the food system through partnerships and agreements. Fine-sounding stuff, especially when the role of agroecology and regenerative farming was mentioned.
However, if, for instance, the interests you hope to form partnerships with are coercing countries to eradicate their essential buffer food stocks then bid for such food on the global market with US dollars (as in India) or are lobbying for the enclosure of seeds through patents (as in Africa and elsewhere), then surely this deliberate deepening of dependency should be challenged; otherwise ‘partnership’ really means co-option.
Similarly, the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) that took place during September in New York was little more than an enabler of corporate needs. The UNFSS was founded on a partnership between the UN and the World Economic Forum and was disproportionately influenced by corporate actors.
Those granted a pivotal role at the UNFSS support industrial food systems that promote ultra-processed foods, deforestation, industrial livestock production, intensive pesticide use and commodity crop monocultures, all of which cause soil deterioration, water contamination and irreversible impacts on biodiversity and human health. And this will continue as long as the environmental effects can be ‘offset’ or these practices can be twisted on the basis of them somehow being ‘climate-friendly’.
Critics of the UNFSS offer genuine alternatives to the prevailing food system. In doing so, they also provide genuine solutions to climate-related issues and food injustice based on notions of food sovereignty, localisation and a system of food cultivation deriving from agroecological principles and practices. Something which people who organised the climate summit in Glasgow would do well to bear in mind.
Current greenwashed policies are being sold by tugging at the emotional heartstrings of the public. This green agenda, with its lexicon of ‘sustainability’, ‘carbon neutrality’, ‘net-zero’ and doom-laden forecasts, is part of a programme that seeks to restructure capitalism, to create new investment markets and instruments and to return the system to viable levels of profitability.
Colin Todhunter, independent writer and analyst specialising in development, food and agriculture based in Europe/India, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
There should be encampments and occupations in and near Middlesborough and Hull. There should be. If the spirit of Earth First and actual environmentalism was with us, perhaps there would be.
The EAST COAST CLUSTER (centred around Middlesborough and Hull) is a well-supported proposal for two industrial decarbonisation hubs connected by a pipeline to North Sea geological storage of CO2. It is the flagship product of the ‘Kickstarter’ initiative launched by the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) in September 2019.
When the CO2 pipeline is connected and the fossil hydrogen production begins the members of the OGCI, a collection of the world’s wealthiest oil and gas CEOs, will have been installed as the gatekeepers of geological storage of CO2. Much like the Porthos project in Rotterdam, the East Coast Cluster is one of many new decarbonisation hubs projected as flagships for late stage fossil fuel extractivism.
Michael SwifteClimate Warriors and Flagships from Hell — OffGuardian
This is an example of the Virus-Cyber-Climate emergency fear mechanisms at work. The New York Times is part of the mainstream media apparatus, which is one of the tentacles of the globalist, Zionist, technocratic oligarchy that wishes to instill the FEAR into ALL OF YOU. It’s latest iteration comes:
A few quotes from the article:
Officials in the area had moved quickly to prepare for the nor’easter, in part scarred by the intensity of several storms this summer that exposed the region’s vulnerability to extreme weather events made more frequent and intense by climate change.from NY Times article
And this quote:
“Someday maybe we’ll just have a regular rainstorm. We don’t seem to get those much anymore,” Joseph Fiordaliso, who leads New Jersey’s utility board, said at a news conference on Tuesday, adding, “Climate change is real, and we have to work to mitigate as much of it as we possibly can.”from NY Times article
These storms – and storms themselves have been in existence since FOREVER. Whether one ascribes to Christian doctrine, or to perhaps one is well acquainted with the Celts, amongst many others I could write here, storms have been in existence since ancient times.
I’ve been alive since 1979 and we have had a shit-ton of storms since then in New England. I’ve lived in New England for some 32 of my 42 years (living elsewhere in the world for work purposes the other ten years – of which storms occured in those places I lived too)…
The Great Reset is meme’ing any/all weather events as abnormalities that are due to “climate change”.
Just so all of you know, the idea of using climate change (an environmental emergency) was conceived by the globalist consortium known as the Club of Rome, I’ve written about them here:
I have also shared information on my blog about MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, yes him, as he stated in 1996 that the possibility of an environmental emergency would we manipulated to usher in a New World Order:
With the hoax of a climate change emergency, they will ultimately tell you the earth will burn up beneath your feet if you do not surrender your rights to private property ownership. If the sheep give in to this? Well, they will find a new home in the smart cities grid (one of the clearcut objectives of Agenda 2030’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals). Through this barrage of propaganda, soon enough the people will be begging for a breathe of fresh air from an eye dropper and Rabbi Klaus Schwab makes that decision.
If you think I am being obtuse then I suggest you return to watching Don Lemon or Rachel Maddow, or David Rubin and Ben Shapiro, whatever keeps you comfortable.
The NY Times is under control of the global financial system. How? Through:
- Ownership of stock (equity)
- Stock ownership affords VOTING RIGHTS
- The Voting Rights are utilized at shareholder meetings
- At these meetings is where major issues of the viability, financial well-being and other important matters are brought up and voted upon
- It is at these meeting that members of the Board of Directors are appointed
- Presence on the Board of Directors – a shareholder can be appointed to the Board (ie a financial institution from BlackRock, or Goldman Sachs, or Comcast, or a private equity firm – can become a Director)
- Directors are responsible for appointing the Executive Management (ie CEO, CFO, COO) which carry out operations of the business entity
- Take a look at the current NY Times Board: https://www.nytco.com/board-of-directors/
I wanted to make a simple blog post therefore I did not cut and paste the BoD here but from the page I can tell you these truths about the Directors:
- Mostly Jewish
- Ties to these companies:
- JP Morgan
- Aspen Institute
- Harvard College
- Columbia University
- Ernst & Young LLP
- Clinton administration
- A slew of venture capital and private equity firms
Have a look at the Board of Directors yourself:
It is also important to note here that the New York Times in it’s history has had Directors, Executives, Editors, Journalists and other employees that have been members of the globalist one world order La Kosher Nostra type of organizations like the World Jewish Congress and B’nai B’rith. Also the spooky groups like the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. And the Think Tanks like the CFR, Brookings Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, Ford Foundation, Christopher Lloyd Foundation (yes 88mph that Christopher Lloyd), Atlantic Council, etc.
And please keep in mind the networking that occurs amongst the NY Times with the entire industry.
This is how Climate Change Emergency becomes the weapon!!!
The entities I listed are all members of the World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum was founded by Klaus Schwab. The World Economic Forum entered into a partnership with the United Nations in June of 2019, a strategic partnership. What was the intent of this partnership?
To summarize; The partnership was created in order for the World Economic Forum to carry out the implementation of the United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals, contained within Agenda 2030. The realization of Agenda 2030 is underway under the scheme called The Great Reset.
This blog post I wrote gives tremendous detail. I put alot of effort into it. Please read it if you want to discover the recent origins of The Great Reset:
I am 42 years old and it is commonplace to have Nor’easter storms. They have occured throughout New England and the northeast portion of the United States (and also affecting Canada – and other places) since – since FOREVER.
The Jew York Times is meme’ing together the phenom known as nature with their climate hoax. Storms have been happening since forever!!
Every storm = climate change. Because the Jews say so.
The media drumbeat for the Green New Deal agenda and the many cries for government to reduce the carbon footprint to save the planet make you wonder where all this is coming from and why.
Some commentators fear that this is less a grassroots initiative and more a Power Elite agenda for reducing and eventually eliminating national sovereignty and creating their long-stated goal of a collectivist One World Government.
One answer lies largely in the 1968 creation and agenda of the “Club of Rome” some 50 years ago. It was founded during a meeting at David Rockefeller’s private estate in Bellagio, Italy.
Club members, including Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Soros, Bill Gates, Queen Beatrix of the Netherland,s and Mikhail Gorbachev, believe humanity requires “a common motivation, namely a common adversary” in order to realize their goal of world government. They choose the threat of environmental catastrophe. (Listen to: “The Club of Rome, Originators of the Global Warming/Climate Change Scam.”)
Ever since, the Club of Rome has been establishing a network of 33 national associations. and their many tentacles of influence have been systematically propagating their catastrophic future vision into the mainstream of global public opinion.
They have been doing this through their controlled mass media cartel as well as their philanthropic foundations and corporations to fund research grants to approved “scientists” to advance their hypotheses, including man-made global warming and the dying off of the polar bears, as being “settled science.”
Today their theories and proposed action plans have entered the educational establishment, think tanks, and activist organizations, the mass media, political action committees, and Capitol Hill.
Leading advocates include many public figures and such prominent Beltway representatives as Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) on the Senate Committee on Appropriations and Congressman Paul Tonko (D-NY) the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change.
What is veiled from the inattentive majority is the role of elitists, who are leaders in finance, corporations, foundations, think tanks, universities, and mass news and entertainment media, as well as in civil government.
Sociologist G. William Domhoff’s book, “Who Rules America,” demonstrates that public policy agenda-setting, “begins informally in corporate boardrooms, social clubs, and discussion groups, where problems are identified as ‘issues’ to be solved by new policies. It ends in government, where their policies are enacted and implemented.”
The initial impetus for policy change and initial resources for research, planning, and formulation come from corporate and personal wealth channeled into tax-free foundations, universities, policy-oriented think tanks, and non-governmental organizations in the form of endowments, grants, and contracts.
Moreover, corporate presidents, directors, top wealth holders, key advisors, and their lawyers also sit on the governing boards of many such institutions to guide and monitor the progress of their plans.
Some observers say that what appears to be an organic, grassroots, bottom-up movement is actually a well-oiled, top-down machine. They point out that funding is selectively provided by their philanthropic foundations and charities. One of the many Council on Foundations’ Affinity Groups, namely the Environmental Grantmakers Association, is the funding epicenter of the environmental movement.
This has been documented by a report from the Congressional Committee on Environment and Public Works on how a club of billionaires and their foundations control the environmental movement.
According to its own website, the Club of Rome is composed of “scientists, economists, businessmen, international high civil servants, heads of state and former heads of state from all five continents who are convinced that the future of humankind is not determined once and for all and that each human being can contribute to the improvement of our societies.”
The Club of Rome is advancing the agenda of Thomas Malthus who argued that population was held within resource limits by two types of checks: 1) positive ones, which raised the death rate, and 2) preventative ones, which lowered the birth rate. The positive checks included hunger, disease and war; the preventative checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, homosexuality, postponement of marriage, and celibacy.
Their vision, as stated in their 1991 publication, “The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome,” reads “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
In his memoirs, David Rockefeller (1915-2017), the founder-funder, wrote: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have … attacked the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions.
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
And that is why the well-funded Green Socialism’s drumbeat continues to intensify.
Editor’s note: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” concluded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Fifth Assessment Report in 2013. These findings are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.
Changes in the productive forces such as any sort of 4th Industrial Revolution must come with vigorous public debate and referendums on planning for a post labor economy, Joaquin Flores writes.
The world and its affairs have been turned upside down, and overnight the elite’s game plan was laid out bare for the world to see: the use of new coercive technologies, AI, automation, and transhumanism.
The public has experienced the roll-out of the new normal regime through a series of sudden changes such as lockdowns and requirements for new kinds of current medical documentation in order to preserve the right of travel and work.
With the ‘new normal’, the ‘great reset’, or ‘building back better’, are we fair in asking if this is their last, best, and final? It is certainly strange that Klaus Schwab, a man who presents so poorly and provokes such suspicion among the audience, would have been rolled out as best spokesman for this endeavor.
When smart cities entered the popular debate, it was clear that technical colleges and universities were being actively propagandized by vectors representing this agenda. These can be understood as a type of large-scale housing project for a post-labor economy that uses control over access to electrical power and proximity to delivery drones as its model.
The outlines of a new social contract such as Klaus Schwab’s; that an academic may have penned such a thing or that society might be discussing it, is normal and even important. But that his ideas are being rolled out as the new reality we must accept, is most surely an affront to civil society and human dignity. It is an attack on pluralism and constitutional systems around the world.
Yet a part of this agenda involves what is arguably the end of humanity as we have known it, perhaps the end of mankind itself if defined a certain way. We are naturally being assured that this is yet the beginning of a new kind of man.
All of this has the frightening look and feel of a ruling class that has just jumped from one way of doing things over to some grand new singular idea.
The particular publicly promoted culture of the elite, of the ruling class, necessarily bears the marks of social ‘good’ and social ‘permissibility’, because this whole public display is for popular consumption and has been selected just for that reason. As we have developed in past works, they merely use this discursive framework because it disarms the public. In developing on describing the aspirations and modus operandi of technocracy in rising, Alastair Crooke explains in Is the Era Finally Coming to an End?
“We are dealing here with the ideology of an aspirant ruling class that aims to hoard wealth and position, whilst flaunting its immaculate progressive and globalist credentials. Intractable culture wars, and an epistemic crisis, in which key factual and scientific questions have been politicised, is essentially nothing more than a bid to retain power, by those who stand at the apex of this ‘Creative Class’ – a tight circle of hugely wealthy oligarchs.
Even so, schools are pressured to teach a single version of history, private corporations sack employees for deviant opinions, and cultural institutions act as guardians of orthodoxy. The prototype for these practices is the U.S., which still proclaims its singular history and divisions as the source of emulation for every contemporary society.”
For much of the 20th century the institutions implored us to believe that socially directed labor does not fundamentally produce the origin of value, only later to find that at the end of that era only this truth could explain the crisis that AI and automation bring.
Because Robots do not Eat or Own Things
So much of the economy is simply people washing each other’s clothes. The rise of automation and AI makes some great number of humanity, greater than some 9/10th’s of the population, entirely redundant in terms of labor force.
Therefore, the intentional slow-down of business not only accomplishes the obvious upwards redistribution of wealth and further consolidating corporate monopoly “capitalism”, but in the long-term establishes new efficiency matrixes regarding the actual optimal human population size at this particular time.
And yet we have a very serious problem. New coercive technologies have been developed, while other liberatory technologies have been suppressed, to control the great mass of humanity. Yet there’s much more, it is that a whole new period can be ushered in, within which population reduction is a goal. In relation to this is the birth of a new type of man, who is beyond man and also no longer man.
In Klaus Schwab’s book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016), it is clear that transhumanism is a project which aims to integrate cybernetic technologies and nano-tech to transform human beings at the level of DNA (ch. 2.1.3 Biological, Megatrends, The Fourth Industrial Revolution).
Schwab implores us in this section of the book to set-aside the admittedly grave and serious ethical questions these raise, and proceeds to the assertion that these hold the potential to solve the present economic and ecological problems decisively and positively.
If we take these at face value, perhaps the proposals such as smart cities can seem attractive as solutions. But there is high danger in this naiveté.
Because Schwab writes his text in the language of European center-left social-democracy, which is the legitimating ideology in the Trans-Atlantic sphere, the real and truly unspeakable conclusions which one would necessarily have to infer from the text, are left unsaid.
Yet we have large sectors of the staff and employees of the so-called humanitarian spheres, including health and education NGO’s, and the university systems, believing that the proposed changes are humanitarian. Schwab makes explicit overtures to this theme throughout the text.
We must understand to the contrary that the use of nano-tech, cybernetics, and other transhumanist technologies which are proposed to be integrated into the human organism are not what they seem. We are approached with the idea that these only enhance and do not direct thinking, and that these merely work to assist in the body’s functions, longevity, cognitive capacity and so forth.
But this would be true only for the elite themselves along with some other layer. For the rest of humanity, the use of oncoviruses through mandatory inoculation, as well as other forms of biological warfare as a class-war weapon could be the norm.
Whatever future population will remain after depopulation efforts, the resources at the disposal for this remaining population per capita will be less than presently enjoyed by those of the middle-class populations in 1st world countries. This seems counterintuitive, if one believes there is some aim of improving the living conditions for the population that remains. But here we confront smart cities.
As we have discussed previously, this involves using Tokyo as an example in terms of living spaces – 150 square foot apartments with low ceiling heights. There are even greater dangers to the development of so-called smart cities which like panopticons are large prison networks.
The development of these kinds of arrangements works against decentralized living models as well. They rely upon the same supply line frailties which in turn will justify the further development of the police state, using cyberterrorism as a pretext.
In addition, all energy consumed will be tracked in the apartment with ‘smart appliances’ that will send the data back to monitoring and enforcement agencies. The aim of smart cities is to create the hydraulic despotism as discussed in our past discussion of oriental despotism.
The Single-Minded Crisis
It all does seem like a new idea, indeed, has been decided upon and rolled out. Not an invitation for a conversation, not a proposal that we get a referendum on. Just rolled out over the heads of the public.
The disastrous result we have encountered through the formalization of anti-democratic technocratic institutions which want to rule indefinitely, is the erroneous belief that the technocratic elite today – who have ruled over the past century – are equipped to effect a social transformation that accounts for the new technologies. What the World Economic Forum publishes makes us aware that the elite are aware that their system is producing “undesired” inequities. Despite this, they are apparently aware of the limitations imposed on them by their position in relation to everything else.
The efforts and plans of the WEF assume and rely upon the existence of an interlocking directorate at the top level of Western society. Conversely, its vision is necessarily limited and its aims are directed in large part by the imposition of this directorate on a common vision. From this common vision, we begin to produce single-mindedness.
So they created semi-meritocratic educational institutions, recruiting and scouting fresh minds for the great new idea, so that the problem of single-mindedness can be overcome.
The Platonic-gnostic film ‘Dark City’ explains why these are attempts will fail. In this film, a dying alien race of strangers rules over abducted people on a small city-sized flat-earth island in deep-space, where the people believe they are living back on earth. This race is dying because they have a single consciousness and thought, and they are studying humans – for their diversity – to find the single-mind to emulate for the coming period.
What this race of strangers does is akin to what the elites today attempt to do with their think tanks and gestures towards meritocracy. The strangers are trying to distill from the collectivity of humanity the single new idea that will give them new life.
But the strangers are engaged in self-defeat, the solution they envision is at the root of their problem. A single consciousness cannot be used to replace the old consciousness of a single-minded entity if the problem is a single-consciousness problem. What makes humanity are the multiplicity of divergent consciousness and the differences through the diversity of their experiences.
The ruling class in the west presents itself like these strangers, having awareness of the crisis of their own making, but with a limited understanding of solutions to those things it can understand.
We can see that changes in the productive forces such as any sort of 4th Industrial Revolution must also come with vigorous public debate and referendums on planning for a post labor economy.
For humanity, a 4th Industrial Revolution is one that could promise to decentralize power because it decentralizes the entire cycle of commodity production and distribution. Therefore, we have the possibility of a new kind of elite, whose power is based upon more horizontally situated power vectors, flattened as a product of their localized domain of power. But the elites today are working against this idea of a 4IR.
We understand already that the elites have proposed smart cities and the use of these kinds of ‘hydraulic’ despotisms, as concentrations of power and society. They will control the power source and can control citizens’ access to amenities and rental objects to their smart apartment, based on social credit. Such a proposal is misanthropic and tyrannical in its essence, but is also the best that a single-minded consciousness can arrive at.
These kinds of smart cities will have a total size, that correspond to a total human population, a lower number to be sure – but what exactly to be determined by technocratic solutions that represent the sensibilities of the ruling class at the time.
Because there are any number of viable alternatives, all of which appear better than the best offer being made by the elites, the civilizational crisis in the west right now is a political crisis and one characterized by irreconcilable differences.
- Joaquin Flores is educated in the field of IR and IPE at California State University Los Angeles; previously served as a business agent and organizer for the SEIU labor union; has published internationally on subjects of geopolitics, war, and diplomacy; serves as the director of the Belgrade-based Center for Syncretic Studies, and is Chief Editor at Fort Russ News.
The Great Reset is the name of the partnership formed between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. The endgoal is to usher in the objectives of Agenda 2030. The United Nations’ purpose is to implement global governance. The World Economic Forum is a consortium of members which include governments, corporations, NGOs, foundations, universities, international-level institutions, trade associations and more. Each year, key individuals from the aforementioned group meet in Davos, Switzerland to discuss to global economic matters. The 2021 Davos convention focused almost entirely upon implementation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals elaborated upon within Agenda 2030.
The following are buzzwords to be aware of when reading news, publications, books, websites, trade publications, SEC filings – basically every form of medium known to man:
- Rebirthing culture
- Climate change
- Climate action
- Climate refugee
- Climate migrant
- Climate justice
- Climate awareness
- Climate warrior
- Leave no one behind
- People, Planet, Profits
- Reporting requirements
- Domestic extremism
- New economy
- Regenerative tourism
- Green bond
- Green investment
- Green Funds
- Medical inequality
- Medically necessary
- Co-creation: science and society
- The geopolitics of vaccine inequality
- Green New Deal
- Build Back Better
- Circular economy
- Nature-based solutions
- Ecological connectivity
- Stakeholder capitalism
- Fourth Industrial Revolution
- Robotics for nature
- Cyber threats
- Cyber security
- Cyber fingerprint
- Digital fingerprint
- Carbon reduction
- Net zero carbon emissions
- Triple Bottom Line
- ESG ( Environment, Sustainability, Governance)
- Neighborhood revitalization
- Asset based community development
- Digital currency
- Invasive species
- Traffic calming
- Direct Instruction
- Smart cities
- Smart devices
- Smart development
- Life-Long Learning
- Reinventing Government
- Resilient city
- Clean energy
- Renewable resources
- Efficiency credits
- Human Capital
- Carbon credits
- Common Core
- Transformational change
- Building a shared future
- World Conservation Congress
- Anchoring biodiversity to nature
Cops in Switzerland rise up against government-imposed restrictions
Police in Switzerland are rising up against the “Great Reset” by refusing to enforce government-imposed restrictions on the general public.
A group representing Swiss police officers wrote a letter to the Swiss Federation of Police Officers (FSFP) declaring that cops work for the people and not the global elite.
The group warned they will not enforce restrictive measures that disproportionately undermine the fundamental rights of citizens.
“If the measures were to conflict with the general opinion of the population, disproportionately limiting their fundamental rights, many police officers would no longer be willing to apply them,” the group wrote in the letter.
While the letter was received favorably by the Swiss public, the FSFP attempted to downplay the uprising by claiming it only represents a small number of police officers.Adrian Gaugler of the Conference of Cantonal Police Commanders went further, threatening the officers with sanctions if they refused to enforce the measures.
An officer who refuses to enforce the law can be punished,” said Gaugler.
“Police refusing to enforce coronavirus measures is not unique to Switzerland,” writes Chris Tomlinson.
“Earlier this year, police in the Canadian province of Ontario rejected new powers given by the provincial government that would have allowed them to stop any motorist or pedestrian and demand to know where they live and why they were not at home.”
It’s not just in Europe where restrictive measures are being rejected, however.
Lawmakers in the United States are now also calling on the public to demand freedom.
As Neon Nettle first reported last week, Republican Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has released a statement calling on patriotic Americans to rise up against Joe Biden’s tyrannical government to “resist” the “Great Reset” through mass civil disobedience.
Senator Paul has called on the public to stand up against unconstitutional lockdowns, mandates, and harmful policies being imposed by “power-hungry” elites.
In an op-ed for Fox News, Paul slammed Democrat leaders Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “tyrants“.
“They can’t arrest us all,” Paul declared as he urged patriots to “resist” the Democrats’ attempts to “destroy America.”
“We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads,” Paul declared.
“Will we allow these people to use fear and propaganda to do further harm to our society, economy, and children?
“Or will we stand together and say, absolutely not.”
Not this time.
“I choose freedom.”